world

Kavanaugh to hear first arguments as Supreme Court justice

27 Comments
By JESSICA GRESKO and MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


27 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Alabama death row inmate whose lawyers argue he shouldn't be executed because dementia has left him unable to remember his crime

That's an interesting one.

He'll also sit on the committee that oversees the court's cafeteria, which is open to the public.

No Macca's or KFC i take it? ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. Kavanaugh will defer completely to the Executive Branch, until there's a Democrat in office; at which point he will suddenly discover judicial oversight, and apply it in the extreme. Until, of course, the next Republican.

sigh

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The Kav will continue to demonstrate the bias he showed us during his testimony regarding Dr. Ford by ruling against anything he sees as too liberal.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

They only arguement that he is going to hear is... "What the hell are you doing sitting behind that bench!!?"

S

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I am not smart enough to know how Kavanaugh will rule on anything. I guess I will wait and see until something tangible occurs and then weigh in.

Shall be interesting

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Kavfefe. Will be good to see how he rules and how many of those are the predictable 5-4 decisions.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Kavanaugh looks rough. Had a session and now soon to be in session.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I think he will go over the top in explaining the decisions he does make because he will be under enormous scrutiny.

If you like the constitution, you should be happy, if you don't, you won't, because he will follow the constitution and precedent. He won't be making stuff up to suit anyone and acting as a judicial activist.

He is already stated that very clearly.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

At the photo-op ceremony a puffed-up Trump blithely crowed that Kavanaugh had been proven "innocent". Yet when the judge stepped up to the podium, he once again showed his sloppy approach to points of law by egregiously failing to correct the Constitution's "Defender's" erroneous understanding of America's legal system. Kavanaugh and Trump are both a piece of work. God help America!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"Mr. Kavanaugh will defer completely to the Executive Branch..."

No, he'll defer completely to the Constitution.

",... until there's a Democrat in office"

It's gonna be a long time before that happens. Not until at least 2025. Probably after that, if ever.

I think I'll have a brewski now.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Why does the supreme court need politically motivated judges? Surely they should have zero political allegiances?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

he will follow the constitution and precedent

He will interpret the Constitution the same way his conservative brethren on the court do: in a manner that gives undue protection to "voices" with the most money, conservative Christian causes, and the GOP's power grabs through gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of minorities.

This idea that one can follow the Constitution "as written" is a smokescreen. The Constitution is an imperfect and unclear document that everyone is bound to interpret. Conservatives, for example, tend to disregard the "well-regulated militia" context in the 2nd Amendment. They prefer a broad reading that includes every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"I think I'll have a brewski now"--See if you can pour some down Trump's craw. It might loosen him up some to try a beer for once in his life. Get a good buzz going and all of a sudden Twitter seems downright boring.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

He will interpret the Constitution the same way his conservative brethren on the court do: in a manner that gives undue protection to "voices" with the most money, conservative Christian causes, and the GOP's power grabs through gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of minorities.

This idea that one can follow the Constitution "as written" is a smokescreen. The Constitution is an imperfect and unclear document that everyone is bound to interpret. Conservatives, for example, tend to disregard the "well-regulated militia" context in the 2nd Amendment. They prefer a broad reading that includes every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry.

I guess we will see.

He certainly won't be acting as an activist like Democrat linked judges are infamous for doing which is absolutely, 100% contrary to what the supreme court and its justices are meant to do.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

He certainly won't be acting as an activist like Democrat linked judges are infamous for doing which is absolutely, 100% contrary to what the supreme court and its justices are meant to do.

Infamous for doing? You'll need some cites to back that up.

Because we all know how strict of a constitutionalist Scalia was:

The idea that liberal judges are advocates and partisans while judges like Justice Scalia are not is being touted everywhere these days, and it is pure myth. Justice Scalia has been more than willing to ignore the Constitution's plain language, and he has a knack for coming out on the conservative side in cases with an ideological bent. The conservative partisans leading the war on activist judges are just as inconsistent: they like judicial activism just fine when it advances their own agendas.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Democrats will now have to achieve their goals the old-fashioned way—by winning elections.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let's all agree that when the Kav's first opinion is published, we all read every opinion in its entirety before commenting.

This should be a blast; let the games continue!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The photo is of kindred spirits gazing into each other's eyes as they consummate their tender dance.

MAGA!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

People must not comprehend the fact that --- the Judge nominated by Obama , the Judge the democrats claim the Republicans denied -- voted in agreement on issues 93% of the time with Judge Kavanaugh while they sat on the same court of appeals.  

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

People must not comprehend the fact that --- the Judge nominated by Obama , the Judge the democrats claim the Republicans denied -- voted in agreement on issues 93% of the time with Judge Kavanaugh while they sat on the same court of appeals.  

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/

Doesn't surprise me. Despite the hysteria, Kavanaugh is not seen as particularly conservative by conservatives.

Listen to Ben Shappiro and he has stated he was luke warm on the guy and you get the feeling that's why.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mr. Kavanaugh will defer completely to the Executive Branch, until there's a Democrat in office; at which point he will suddenly discover judicial oversight, and apply it in the extreme. Until, of course, the next Republican.

If he did that, it’s totally understandable.

So now for the next 30-40 years liberals get to see what it’s like to sit in the backseat and the funny thing is, they can’t do a darn thing about it. The creepy porn lawyer indeed sealed Kavanaugh’s fate with that bogus Swetnick. Lol

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Creepy porn lawyer says just make it 11 justices or 13 and “pack” the court with liberals in 2020. I bet he is totally against trump doing the same exact thing right now. For reasons....

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

now for the next 30-40 years liberals get to see what it’s like to sit in the backseat

It disturbs me that you would take delight in marginalizing and humiliating a large segment of your countrymen. If it was wrong when done to you, it’s wrong when done to others. That’s a traditional bit of morality that’s worth conserving. That’s real conservatism.

BTW what particular injustice have you suffered or witnessed over the past 30 or 40 years because of a fairly balanced Supreme Court?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

It disturbs me that you would take delight in marginalizing and humiliating a large segment of your countrymen.

That particular segment takes delight in marginalizing a large segment of us as well.

If it was wrong when done to you, it’s wrong when done to others. That’s a traditional bit of morality that’s worth conserving. That’s real conservatism.

I agree, but for so many years conservatives were too, too nice and just allowed the Democrats and liberals bully them, push them around, threaten and terrorize them, since Trump has been President he has shown that it is ok to fight back and play fore with fire, so now the conservatives will take off the kid gloves and get nasty and dirty like the right, if it were any other President, they would have given up and maybe Kavanaugh as well, Trump didn’t do that, Susan Collins didn’t do that.

BTW what particular injustice have you suffered or witnessed over the past 30 or 40 years because of a fairly balanced Supreme Court?

Not me personally, but when it comes to issues on abortion, religion, the right to say no and live as you like, the 2nd amendment, land grabs, the right to eat what I want without having to made feel guilty, to drive whatever I want, the right to own any weapon I want or if I choose to go to a charter school, dismantle the constitution, civics, American History etc.

We can go on forever, but I’m just happy a lot of that will change, hallelujah!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

As always, I summarized each point, now you can easily find the cases.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

People must not comprehend the fact that --- the Judge nominated by Obama , the Judge the democrats claim the Republicans denied -- voted in agreement on issues 93% of the time with Judge Kavanaugh while they sat on the same court of appeals. 

The republicans never denied Garland because they never bothered to do their jobs and vote on him.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That particular segment takes delight in marginalizing a large segment of us as well.

It's wrong either way and shouldn't he perpetuated.

President he has shown that it is ok to fight back and play fore with fire, so now the conservatives will take off the kid gloves and get nasty and dirty like the right,

Nice Freudian slip.

Not me personally,

So you have little reason to feel victimized.

but when it comes to issues on abortion,

The restrictions on women control their own bodies aren't tight enough for you? You do realize that nobody is lining up for abortions as if they are rides at Disneyland, correct?

There are plenty of restrictions in states that enjoy controlling women's bodies such as Texas, Kansas, and Indiana. Don't interfere in other states' affairs or with women's bodies.

religion,

You are completely free to practice any religion you like. Government money actually funds private Christian schools. What injustice is being done?

the right to say no

To what? The right of a women to day no to the government controlling her body? I agree.

and live as you like,

You have this right, but you have to live within the law. Again, no injustice.

the 2nd amendment,

You can purchase automatic firearms if you have the correct license and have paid the correct taxes. What more do you want?

land grabs,

To build walls along the border? Give me one good example,

the right to eat what I want without having to made feel guilty, to drive whatever I want,

If you feel guilty for eating and drinking things, that's your own doing. There is zero mention of eating and driving in the constitution.

the right to own any weapon I want

See abovez

or if I choose to go to a charter school,

You can. Oh, you want more government money to flow into charter schools.

dismantle the constitution,

This is not happening.

civics, American History etc.

This also is not happening, Infostion is more freely flowing, so our understanding of history is changing. That scares some people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites